William IV of The United Kingdom - Legacy

Legacy

William's reign was short, but eventful. The ascendancy of the House of Commons and the corresponding decline of the House of Lords were marked by the Reform Crisis, during which the threat of flooding the Upper House with peers was used effectively for the first time by a ministry. The weakening of the House of Lords continued during the nineteenth century, and culminated during the twentieth century with the passage of the Parliament Act 1911. The same threat which had been used during the Reform Crisis—the threat to flood the House of Lords by creating several new peers—was used to procure its passage.

The reduction in the influence of the Crown was clearly indicated by the events of William's reign, especially the dismissal of the Melbourne ministry. The crisis relating to Melbourne's dismissal also indicated the reduction in the King's influence with the people. During the reign of George III, the King could have dismissed one ministry, appointed another, dissolved Parliament, and expected the people to vote in favour of the new administration. Such was the result of a dissolution in 1784, after the dismissal of the Fox-North Coalition, and 1807, after the dismissal of William Wyndham Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville. But when William IV dismissed the Melbourne ministry, the Tories under Sir Robert Peel were not able to win the ensuing elections. The King's ability to influence the opinion of the people, and therefore national policy, had been reduced. None of William's successors has attempted to remove a government or appoint another against the wishes of Parliament. William understood that as a constitutional monarch he was powerless to act against the opinion of Parliament. He said, "I have my view of things, and I tell them to my ministers. If they do not adopt them, I cannot help it. I have done my duty."

During his reign great reforms were enacted by Parliament including the Factory Act, preventing child labour, the Abolition Act, emancipating slaves in the colonies, and the Poor Law, standardising provision for the destitute. He attracted criticism from reformers, who felt that reform did not go far enough, and from reactionaries, who felt that reform went too far. The modern interpretation is that he failed to satisfy either political extreme by trying to find compromise between two bitterly opposed factions, but in the process proved himself more capable as a constitutional monarch than many had supposed.